# 2
Source: PSS vol. 7

First and foremost, I would like to make two remarks of a particular character. In the first place, regarding Axelrod's kind (and I say this without irony) proposal to "bargain." I would gladly heed this call, since I do not at all consider our disagreement so essential that the life or death of the party depends upon it. We shall hardly perish from a poor point in the statutes! But once the matter has come down to choosing between two formulations, I cannot in any way renounce my firm conviction that Martov's formulation represents a deterioration of the original draft—a deterioration that could, under certain conditions, bring considerable harm to the party. The second remark concerns comrade Bruker. It is perfectly natural that, wishing to introduce the elective principle everywhere, comrade Bruker adopted my formulation, which alone defines the concept of party member with any precision whatsoever. I therefore do not understand comrade Martov's satisfaction regarding comrade Bruker's agreement with me. Does comrade Martov really accept as a guide for himself the opposite of what Bruker says, without examining his motives and arguments?

Turning to the substance of the matter, I shall say that comrade Trotsky has completely failed to understand the fundamental idea of comrade Plekhanov and therefore has sidestepped the entire essence of the question in his arguments. He spoke of intellectuals and workers, of the class viewpoint and of mass movement, but failed to notice one fundamental question: does my formulation narrow or broaden the concept of party member? Had he posed this question to himself, he would easily have seen that my formulation narrows this concept, while Martov's broadens it, distinguished (in Martov's own apt phrase) by "elasticity." And it is precisely this "elasticity" in such a period of party life as we are now experiencing that undoubtedly throws open the doors to all elements of discord, vacillation, and opportunism. To refute this simple and obvious conclusion, one would have to prove that no such elements exist; and comrade Trotsky never even thought to do so. Indeed, it is impossible to prove this, since everyone knows that such elements abound, that they exist even within the working class. The protection of the firmness of the party line and the purity of its principles becomes precisely now a task all the more urgent, inasmuch as the party, restored to its unity, will admit into its ranks a great many unstable elements, whose numbers will grow as the party grows. Comrade Trotsky has very incorrectly understood the fundamental idea of my book *What Is to Be Done?* when he said that the party is not a conspiratorial organization (many others have made this same objection to me). He forgot that in my book I presuppose a whole series of different types of organizations, ranging from the most conspiratorial and narrowest to comparatively broad and "free" (lose)[65] ones. He forgot that the party ought to be merely the vanguard, the leader of the vast masses of the working class, which as a whole (or almost as a whole) works "under the control and leadership" of party organizations, but which does not enter as a whole into the party and ought not to enter as a whole. Consider, in truth, what conclusions comrade Trotsky arrives at as a result of his fundamental error. He told us here that if rows upon rows of workers were arrested and all workers declared their non-membership of the party, then what a strange party ours would be! Is it not the reverse? Is not comrade Trotsky's argument strange? He considers sad that which would only gladden any reasonably experienced revolutionary. If hundreds and thousands of workers arrested for strikes and demonstrations turned out not to be members of party organizations, this would prove only that our organizations are sound, that we are fulfilling our task—to keep conspiratorial a more or less narrow circle of leaders and to attract to the movement the widest possible masses. The root of the error of those who stand for Martov's formulation lies in the fact that they not only ignore one of the fundamental evils of our party life, but even sanctify this evil. This evil consists in the fact that, in an atmosphere of almost universal political discontent, under conditions of complete secrecy of work, under conditions where the greater part of activity is concentrated in narrow secret circles and even in private meetings, it is extraordinarily difficult for us—almost impossible—to distinguish those who merely talk from those who actually work. And hardly in any other country is the confusion of these two categories so common, bringing such darkness of chaos and harm, as in Russia. Not only among the intelligentsia, but also among the working class do we suffer grievously from this evil, and comrade Martov's formulation legalizes this evil. This formulation inevitably tends to make everyone and each person a member of the party; comrade Martov himself had to acknowledge this with a caveat—"if you wish, yes," he said. This is precisely what we do not wish! This is precisely why we rise so decisively against Martov's formulation. Better that ten actual workers do not call themselves party members (genuine workers do not chase after titles!), than that one chatterer should have the right and possibility to be a party member. This is the principle that seems to me irrefutable and that compels me to struggle against Martov. I have been objected to that we grant no rights to party members, and therefore no abuses are possible. Such an objection is completely untenable: if we do not specify what particular rights a party member receives, then note that we have also provided no instructions regarding the limitation of party members' rights. That is, first. But second, and this is the main point, independently even of rights, one cannot forget that every party member is responsible to the party and the party is responsible for every member. Under our conditions of political activity, in the embryonic state of genuine political organization, it would be directly dangerous and harmful to grant non-members of the organization the right of membership and to place on the party the responsibility for such people who do not enter an organization (and do not enter, perhaps, intentionally). Comrade Martov was horrified at the thought that in court a non-member of a party organization would have no right, despite energetic work, to call himself a party member. This does not frighten me. The serious harm would be, on the contrary, if in court there appeared in an undesirable light a person who calls himself a party member while belonging to none of the party organizations. It is impossible to refute that such a person worked under the control and leadership of an organization; it is impossible precisely because of the vagueness of the term. In fact—and there can be no doubt about this—the words "under the control and leadership" will lead to the result that there will be neither control nor leadership. The Central Committee will never be in a position to extend genuine control over all who work but do not enter organizations. Our task is to place real control in the hands of the Central Committee. Our task is to guard the firmness, steadfastness, and purity of our party. We must strive to raise the rank and significance of party member higher, higher, and higher—and that is why I am against Martov's formulation.

Checked against the manuscript